SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to illustrate a stand-alone board-level evolvable system (SABLES) and its performance, and second to illustrate some problems that occur during evolution with real hardware in the loop, or when the intention of the user is not completely reflected in the fitness function.
This paper describes the development and testing of a microthrust stand in the Advanced Propulsion Technology Laboratory at NASA/JPL.
This document is an environmental assessment that examines the environmental impacts of a proposed plan to clear land and to construct a test stand for use in testing the J-2X rocket engine at simulated altitude conditions in support of NASA's Constellation Program.
A storage control system includes an apparatus and method for user control of a storage interface to operate a storage medium to store data obtained by a real-time data acquisition system. Digital data received in serial format from the data acquisition system is first converted to a parallel format and then provided to the storage interface. The operation of the storage interface is controlled in accordance with instructions based on user control input from a user. Also, a user status output is displayed in accordance with storage data obtained from the storage interface. By allowing the user to control and monitor the operation of the storage interface, a stand-alone, user-controllable data storage system is provided for storing the digital data obtained by a real-time data acquisition system.
Background: By removing vision and altering somatosensory inputs, we can examine the contributions of the vestibular system on balance control. Computerized Dynamic Posturography (CDP) systems accomplish this by using a dynamic plate that moves in proportion to the sway of the subject. A potential alternative to CDP is the use of a compliant foam surface. The goal of this study was to compare postural sway during each condition. Methods: Thirty-two healthy subjects (16 male and 16 female) were tested on a Equitest computerized posturography system and on a 5 inch thick block of foam (NeuroCom International; Clackamas, OR). Subjects performed three trials with their head erect and five trials with dynamic head tilts ( 20 at 0.33Hz) in the anterior-posterior (AP) plane. Subjects were instructed to stand quietly with their arms folded and eyes closed for each trial lasting 20 seconds. The sway in both AP and medial-lateral (ML) planes was calculated for each trial, as well as the total sway path length. Results: In general, AP sway tended to be greater on the Equitest than on foam and greater during the head movement trials than the head erect. The ML sway was consistently higher on foam and did not vary between head erect and moving conditions. Sway path length was consistently greater for head erect trials on foam and tended to be greater for head movement trials on the Equitest. The addition of head movements increases AP sway and the total path length. Conclusions: Based on the increase of sway in the ML direction, it is important to quantify sway in all directions when on a compliant foam surface.
Direct imaging and characterization of exo-solar terrestrial planets require coronagraphic instruments capable of suppressing star light to 10-10. Pupil shaping masks have been proposed and designed1 at Princeton University to accomplish such a goal. Based on Princeton designs, free standing (without a substrate) silicon masks have been fabricated with lithographic and deep etching techniques. In this paper, we discuss the fabrication of such masks and present their physical and optical characteristics in relevance to their performance over the visible to near IR bandwidth.
A .General Electric fuel and torque regulator was tested in conjunction with a T31-3 turbine-propeller engine in the sea-level static test stand at the NACA Lewis laboratory. The engine and control were operated over the entire speed range: 11,000 rpm, nominal flight idle, to 13,000 rpm, full power. Steady-state and transient data were recorded and are presented with a description of the four control loops being used in the system. Results of this investigation indicated that single-lever control operation was satisfactory under conditions of test. Transient data presented showed that turbine-outlet temperature did overshoot maximum operating value on acceleration but that the time duration of overshoot did not exceed approximately 1 second. This temperature limiting resulted from a control on fuel flow as a function of engine speed. Speed and torque first reached their desired values 0.4 second from the time of change in power-setting lever position. Maximum speed overshoot was 3 percent.
The Sensorimotor Risk Standing Review Panel (SRP) met at the NASA Johnson Space Center on October 4-6, 2009 to discuss the areas of future research targeted by the Human Health Countermeasures (HHC) Element of the Human Research Program (HRP). Using evidence-based knowledge as a background for risks, NASA had identified gaps in knowledge to address those risks. Ongoing and proposed tasks were presented to address the gaps. The charge to the Sensorimotor Risk SRP was to review the gaps, evaluate whether the tasks addressed these gaps and to make recommendations to NASA s HRP Science Management Office regarding the SRP's review. The SRP was requested to evaluate the practicality of the proposed efforts in light of the realistic demands placed on the HRP. In short, all tasks presented in the Integrated Research Plan (IRP) should address specific risks related to the challenges faced by the astronauts as a result of prolonged exposure to microgravity. All tasks proposed to fill the gaps in knowledge should provide applied, translational data necessary to address the specific risks. Several presentations were made to the SRP during the site visit and the SRP spent sufficient time to address the panel charge, either as a group or in separate sessions. The SRP made a final debriefing to the HRP Program Scientist. Taking the evidence and the risk as givens, the SRP reached the following conclusions: 1) the panel is very supportive of and endorses the present activities of the Sensorimotor Risk; and the panel is likewise supportive of the gaps and associated tasks in the IRP; 2) overall, the tasks addressed the gaps in the IRP; 3) there were some gaps and tasks that merit further enhancement and some new gaps/tasks that the SRP recommends.
The Nutrition Risk Standing Review Panel (SRP) reviewed and discussed the specific gaps and tasks for the Human Health Countermeasures (HHC) Element related to nutrition identified in the Human Research Program (HRP) Integrated Research Plan. There was general consensus that the described gaps and proposed tasks were critical to future NASA mission success. The SRP acknowledged the high scientific quality of the work currently being undertaken by the Nutritional Biochemistry group under the direction of Dr. Scott Smith. In review of the entire HRP, four new gaps were identified that complement the Element's existing research activities. Given the limitations of ground-based analogs for many of the unique physiological and metabolic alterations in space, future studies are needed to quantify nutritional factors that change during actual space flight. In addition, future tasks should seek to better evaluate the time course of physiological and metabolic alterations during flight to better predict alterations during longer duration missions. Finally, given the recent data suggesting a potential role for increased inflammatory responses during space flight, the role of inflammation needs to be explored in detail, including the development of potential countermeasures and new ground based analogs, if this possibility is confirmed.
The Bone and Muscle Risk Standing Review Panel (SRP) met at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) on October 4-6, 2009 to discuss the areas of current and future research targeted by the Human Health Countermeasures (HHC) Element of the Human Research Program (HRP). Using evidence-based knowledge as a background for identified risks to astronaut health and performance, NASA had identified gaps in knowledge to address those risks. Ongoing and proposed tasks were presented to address the gaps. The charge to the Bone and Muscle Risk SRP was to review the gaps, evaluate whether the tasks addressed these gaps and to make recommendations to NASA s HRP Science Management Office regarding the Panel's review. The Bone and Muscle Risk SRP consisted of scientists who are experts in muscle, bone, or both and could evaluate the existing evidence with sufficient knowledge of the potential effects of long duration exposure to microgravity. More important, although expertise in basic science is important, the SRP was requested to evaluate the practicality of the proposed efforts in light of the realistic demands placed on the HRP. In short, all tasks presented in the Integrated Research Plan (IRP) should address specific questions related to the challenges faced by the astronauts as a result of prolonged exposure to microgravity. All tasks proposed to fill the gaps in knowledge should provide applied, translational data necessary to answer the specific questions. Several presentations were made to the SRP during the site visit and the SRP spent sufficient time to address the panel charge, either as a group or in separate sessions for the Bone and Muscle Risk subgroups. The SRP made a final debriefing to the HRP Program Scientist, Dr. John B. Charles, on October 6, 2009. Taking the evidence and identified risks as givens, the SRP concluded that 1) integration of information should lead to a more comprehensive approach to identifying the gaps, 2) not all tasks addressed the gaps as stated in the IRP, 3) better access should be given to the SRP to existing data to include in its review, and 4) there were some missing gaps and tasks. As a result the SRP recommended 1) combining certain gaps, which in some cases were addressed with identical tasks, 2) additional gaps and tasks to address some of the gaps, 3) deleting some gaps and tasks to better focus the efforts of NASA s HRP in prioritizing their efforts, and 4) prioritizing gaps to address significant issues needing resolution in the short term while maintaining an awareness of long-term goals. The SRP commended the efforts by the HHC Element to integrate knowledge gaps and design tasks to address the higher order questions. This integration did not apply to the Bone and Muscle Risk alone, but the musculoskeletal system as its functions integrate with issues in
The Cardiovascular Risk Standing Review Panel (SRP) evaluated several cardiovascular risks associated with space flight along with the ongoing and emerging plans to study these issues and potentially propose and/or develop countermeasures. The areas of focus included: 1) The risk of cardiac rhythm problems during prolonged space flight, and 2) Issues related to the risk of orthostatic intolerance during re-exposure to gravity. An emerging area of concern is radiation associated vascular injury. The risk of cardiac rhythm disturbances has emerged based on case reports only. No systematic study of this risk has been published. However, concerns about this risk are heightened by the age range of astronauts, the structural changes in the heart that occur during space flight, and the potential shifts in fluids and electrolytes. The current plan is to use prolonged Holter monitor EKG records made as part of the "Integrated Cardiovascular SMO" in space to determine more about the frequency and magnitude of this problem and to link this data to complementary data from the nutrition group on electrolytes. The SRP was supportive of this approach. The SRP also felt that any data related to cardiovascular risk in space should be better coordinated with the medical screening data that all astronauts undergo at regular intervals. Additionally, while there are potential privacy issues related to this suggestion, many of the current barriers to better coordination of experimental and clinical data appear to reflect longstanding cultural traditions at NASA that need rethinking. The risk of orthostatic intolerance during re-exposure to gravity was seen by the SRP as an area supported by a wealth of published physiological evidence. The SRP also felt that moving forward with the planned approach to countermeasures was reasonable and that extensive additional hypothesis testing on the physiology of orthostatic intolerance was not needed at this time. There was support for developing ground based models of limited (e.g. 1/6 th) G environments on Earth that generated a number of ideas for consideration by NASA investigators.
The first meeting of the Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP) Standing Review Panel (SRP) was held in Houston, TX on November 1-3, 2009. Our task was to assess the Integrated Research Plan (IRP) related to the fields covered in the SRP charge (see section VIII). Having considered and discussed the extensive materials distributed prior to the meeting, and the highly informative briefings by the NASA BHP Human Research Program (HRP) personnel during the site visit, the SRP agreed that the IRP is comprehensive and was developed carefully. Question and answer periods with the presenters were particularly productive and helpful to the SRP. The presenters' willingness to share information and positive responses to the SRP's suggestions were greatly appreciated. Although the IRP and related documents are impressive, the SRP does have a number of recommendations regarding both the overall plan and its component parts.
The Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Risk Standing Review Panel (SRP) was favorably impressed by the operational risk management approach taken by the Human Research Program (HRP) Integrated Research Plan (IRP) to address the stated life sciences issues. The life sciences community at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) seems to be focused on operational risk management. This approach is more likely to provide risk managers with the information they need at the time they need it. Concerning the information provided to the SRP by the EVA Physiology, Systems, and Performance Project (EPSP), it is obvious that a great deal of productive activity is under way. Evaluation of this information was hampered by the fact that it often was not organized in a fashion that reflects the "Gaps and Tasks" approach of the overall Human Health Countermeasures (HHC) effort, and that a substantial proportion of the briefing concerned subjects that, while interesting, are not part of the HHC Element (e.g., the pressurized rover presentation). Additionally, no information was provided on several of the tasks or how they related to work underway or already accomplished. This situation left the SRP having to guess at the efforts and relationship to other elements, and made it hard to easily map the EVA Project efforts currently underway, and the data collected thus far, to the gaps and tasks in the IRP. It seems that integration of the EPSP project into the HHC Element could be improved. Along these lines, we were concerned that our SRP was split off from the other participating SRPs at an early stage in the overall agenda for the meeting. In reality, the concerns of EPSP and other projects share much common ground. For example, the commonality of the concerns of the EVA and exercise physiology groups is obvious, both in terms of what reduced exercise capacity can do to EVA capability, and how the exercise performed during an EVA could contribute to an overall exercise countermeasure prescription.
The Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE) Standing Review Panel (SRP) evaluated 22 gaps and 39 tasks in the three risk areas assigned to the SHFE Project. The area where tasks were best designed to close the gaps and the fewest gaps were left out was the Risk of Reduced Safety and Efficiency dire to Inadequate Design of Vehicle, Environment, Tools or Equipment. The areas where there were more issues with gaps and tasks, including poor or inadequate fit of tasks to gaps and missing gaps, were Risk of Errors due to Poor Task Design and Risk of Error due to Inadequate Information. One risk, the Risk of Errors due to Inappropriate Levels of Trust in Automation, should be added. If astronauts trust automation too much in areas where it should not be trusted, but rather tempered with human judgment and decision making, they will incur errors. Conversely, if they do not trust automation when it should be trusted, as in cases where it can sense aspects of the environment such as radiation levels or distances in space, they will also incur errors. This will be a larger risk when astronauts are less able to rely on human mission control experts and are out of touch, far away, and on their own. The SRP also identified 11 new gaps and five new tasks. Although the SRP had an extremely large quantity of reading material prior to and during the meeting, we still did not feel we had an overview of the activities and tasks the astronauts would be performing in exploration missions. Without a detailed task analysis and taxonomy of activities the humans would be engaged in, we felt it was impossible to know whether the gaps and tasks were really sufficient to insure human safety, performance, and comfort in the exploration missions. The SRP had difficulty evaluating many of the gaps and tasks that were not as quantitative as those related to concrete physical danger such as excessive noise and vibration. Often the research tasks for cognitive risks that accompany poor task or information design addressed only part, but not all, of the gaps they were programmed to fill. In fact the tasks outlined will not close the gap but only scratch the surface in many cases. In other cases, the gap was written too broadly, and really should be restated in a more constrained way that can be addressed by a well-organized and complementary set of tasks. In many cases, the research results should be turned into guidelines for design. However, it was not clear whether the researchers or another group would construct and deliver these guidelines.
The Space Radiation Standing Review Panel (SRP) met at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) on December 9-11, 2009 to discuss the areas of current and future research targeted by the Space Radiation Program Element (SRPE) of the Human Research Program (HRP). Using evidence-based knowledge as a background for identified risks to astronaut health and performance, NASA had identified gaps in knowledge to address those risks. Ongoing and proposed tasks were presented to address the gaps. The charge to the Space Radiation SRP was to review the gaps, evaluate whether the tasks addressed these gaps and to make recommendations to NASA s HRP Science Management Office regarding the SRP's review. The SRP was requested to evaluate the practicality of the proposed efforts in light of the demands placed on the HRP. Several presentations were made to the SRP during the site visit and the SRP spent sufficient time to address the SRP charge. The SRP made a final debriefing to the HRP Program Scientist, Dr. John B. Charles, on December 11, 2009. The SRP noted that current SRPE strategy is properly science-based and views this as the best assurance of the likelihood that answers to the questions posed as gaps in knowledge can be found, that the uncertainty in risk estimates can be reduced, and that a solid, cost-effective approach to risk reduction solutions is being developed. The current approach of the SRPE, based on the use of carefully focused research solicitations, requiring thorough peer-review and approaches demonstrated to be on the path to answering the NASA strategic questions, addressed to a broad extramural community of qualified scientists, optimally positioned to take advantage of serendipitous discoveries and to leverage scientific advances made elsewhere, is sound and appropriate. The SRP viewed with concern statements by HRP implying that the only science legitimately deserving support should be "applied" or, in some instances that the very term "research" might be frowned upon. We understand the desire of management to ensure that research stay focused on mission objectives, but the terms used are code words fraught with different meaning for scientists. Such expressions, taken at face value, convey a profoundly flawed view of science, can easily lead down counterproductive paths, and have the potential to irretrievably corrupt NASA requirements. The SRP understands and endorses the mandate to keep research efforts focused on the mission needs. However, thoughtful application of knowledge gained by understanding the mechanisms and pathways of biological effects cannot be replaced.
The development of a unified tightly coupled multi-phase computational framework is described for the analysis and design of cooling spray nozzle configurations on the flame deflector in rocket engine test stands. An Eulerian formulation is used to model the disperse phase and is coupled to the gas-phase equations through momentum and heat transfer as well as phase change. The phase change formulation is modeled according to a modified form of the Hertz-Knudsen equation. Various simple test cases are presented to verify the validity of the numerical framework. The ability of the methodology to accurately predict the temperature load on the flame deflector is demonstrated though application to an actual sub-scale test facility. The CFD simulation was able to reproduce the result of the test-firing, showing that the spray nozzle configuration provided insufficient amount of cooling.
Direct thrust measurements have been made on the NASA Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) ion engine using a standard pendulum style thrust stand constructed specifically for this application. Values have been obtained for the full 40-level throttle table, as well as for a few off-nominal operating conditions. Measurements differ from the nominal NASA throttle table 10 (TT10) values by 3.1 percent at most, while at 30 throttle levels (TLs) the difference is less than 2.0 percent. When measurements are compared to TT10 values that have been corrected using ion beam current density and charge state data obtained at The Aerospace Corporation, they differ by 1.2 percent at most, and by 1.0 percent or less at 37 TLs. Thrust correction factors calculated from direct thrust measurements and from The Aerospace Corporation s plume data agree to within measurement error for all but one TL. Thrust due to cold flow and "discharge only" operation has been measured, and analytical expressions are presented which accurately predict thrust based on thermal thrust generation mechanisms.
The 13 Human Research Program (HRP) Standing Review Panel (SRP) Chairs, and in some cases one or two additional panel members (see section XIV, roster) referred to as the Chair (+1) SRP throughout this document, met at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) on December 7, 2010 to allow the HRP Elements and Projects to report on their progress over the past year, their current status, and their plans for the upcoming year based on NASA's current goals and objectives for human space exploration. A large focus of the meeting was also used to discuss integration across the HRP scientific disciplines based on a recommendation from the 2009 HRP SRP review. During the one-day meeting, each of the HRP Elements and Projects presented the changes they made to the HRP Integrated Research Plan (IRP Rev. B) over the last year, and what their top three areas of integration are between other HRP Elements/Projects. The Chair (+1) SRP spent sufficient time addressing the panel charge, either as a group or in a separate closed session, and the Chair (+1) SRP and the HRP presenters and observers, in most cases, had sufficient time to discuss during and after the presentations. The SRP made a final debriefing to the HRP Program Scientist, Dr. John B. Charles, prior to the close of the meeting on December 7, 2010. Overall, the Chair (+1) SRP concluded that most of the HRP Elements/Projects did a commendable job during the past year in addressing integration across the HRP scientific disciplines with the available resources. The Chair (+1) SRP agreed that the idea of integration between HRP Elements/Projects is noble, but believes all parties involved should have the same definition of integration, in order to be successful. The Chair (+1) SRP also believes that a key to successful integration is communication among the HRP Elements/Projects which may present a challenge. The Chair (+1) SRP recommends that the HRP have a workshop on program integration (with HRP Element/Project representatives and maybe outside experts), to interpret the several meanings of integration and how they best can be implemented for the HRP. Another suggestion regarding integration between HRP Elements/Projects is that the HRP convene a meeting of scientists who have a good record of pursuing multidisciplinary/integrative research in the general areas that are relevant to the HRP; identify those that are of high priority; and then support research on those, giving priority to multidisciplinary/integrative teams in which all relevant HRP disciplines are represented. Some of these teams may be already established and functioning within the HRP; others might be organized in response to NASA's research announcements. Lastly, the Chair (+1) SRP felt that there were two overarching issues that spanned across all of the HRP Elements/Projects. The first, which was discussed in great detail, is access to the astronaut medical records, psychological as well as physical. New research will not be useful unless one has access to what has been done, what has worked, and what has not worked. Second is access to records of what medications are being taken by the astronauts while in-flight. The Chair (+1) SRP feels that there needs to be good medical reconciliation to know beginning to end what is happening healthwise to the astronauts.